Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Senator Burris in the Cross-Hairs of ‘Hardball’

By Kate Phillips May 27, 2009 9:21 pmMay 27, 2009 9:21 pm

On MSNBC’s “Hardball” program with Chris Matthews on Wednesday evening, the junior senator from Illinois, Roland W. Burris, appointed by the disgraced and impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, undergoes a grilling that is almost painful to watch.

But Mr. Matthews doggedly pursues pieces of the taped conversation in which Mr. Burris promotes his own candidacy for the Senate position while suggesting that perhaps his law partner, Timothy Wright, could hold a fund-raiser under his name, not Mr. Burris’s. The senator asserts that the fund-raiser was never held, that he couldn’t buy a Senate position for a donation of $1,000 or perhaps $2,000, as the case may be, and that Mr. Wright never agreed to sponsor such an event. (Mr. Wright has been representing Mr. Burris at nearly every point since then.)

Mr. Burris’s appointment to the Senate has been troublesome to Democrats from almost the beginning. At first, Democratic leaders — while not avoiding him — insisted that he had to provide certifications from the Illinois secretary of state, who had balked at offering any validation of the governor’s appointment. At that point, Mr. Blagojevich was still governor but under intense investigative scrutiny and under fire for naming Mr. Burris, which, critics said, tainted the appointment.

At the beginning of the Senate session in January, Mr. Burris trekked through the downpouring rain to the Senate to try to be seated, only to be rebuffed by Senate leaders in what became an embarrassing spectacle all around. Senators Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader from Nevada, and Dick Durbin, the Democratic senior senator from Illinois, ultimately accepted additional certification; Mr. Burris assumed the seat.

But since then, accounts by Senator Burris, a former state attorney general, of what transpired before he received the appointment have shifted. He has filed an additional affidavit after testifying before Illinois lawmakers that he had not engaged in any activities that would suggest “pay-to-play” actions.

In recent weeks and months, the Democratic leaders of the Senate have put extraordinary distance between themselves and Mr. Burris.

Mr. Matthews’s televised confrontation with Senator Burris is one of the first interviews the senator has given since he came under investigation by the ethics panel as well as investigatory bodies in his own state.

The seat is up for election in 2010. Mr. Burris has not indicated that he would seek election to it; Chris Kennedy, one of the sons of Robert F. Kennedy, may be in the running on the Democratic side. And several Republicans have eyed the seat anew, after controversial revelations among their candidates in the earlier election cleared the field, helping Mr. Obama to win election to the seat.

Looks like my predictions regarding Democrat party corruption are coming true. As far as I can see, Sen. Burris committed a “quid pro quo.” In the twisted world of Democrat party politics, however, this crook will stay on the scene far too long…

I listened to the Hardball episode and am uncertain. I would have liked to hear the whole tape, I think that would give a better sense of whether it was a quid pro quo they were discussing. But from what Chris Matthews played, it seems like it could go either way. It could be they were discussing pay-to-play or it could be that Burris was saying he’d like to help the governor with fund raising but since he’s interested in the seat, it would appear too much like he bought it. I can hear it either way.

After reading it, I believe that Burris didn’t want to do anything that would give the appearance that he was trying to buy the seat. In fact, the one snippet Matthews kept harping on as supposed “smoking gun” evidence of a quid pro quo…

BURRIS: And, and God knows number one, I, I wanna help Rod. Number two, I also wanna, you know hope I get a consideration to get that appointment.

…is actually one of the statements which makes it clear that Burris wanted to avoid even the appearance of trying to buy the Senate seat. He wanted to “help”, or make a campaign contribution to Blago, as he had done in the past, but he didn’t think he could do in this time, because it would be construed as a quid pro quo. On the other hand, he felt that if he didn’t contribute, he wouldn’t be looked upon favorably. That was the “dilemma” he talked about. He hit upon the idea of just writing a check on his own (which certainly wouldn’t have been enough to buy the seat), then abandoned even that idea because it may haved looked improper.

BURRIS: … I’m just trying to figure out what the best way to do where it won’t create any, any conflict for either one of us.

What is Burris saying here? He’s saying that he was trying to figure out the best way to give a ROUTINE contribution to Blago’s campaign without it creating the appearance of impropriety.

Chris Mathews picks and chooses when he’s going to come on strong and when he’s going to give someone a pass. I curse the way he cheerleaded as we went into Iraq, for instance. I watched his spittle-laced badgering of Senator Burris — who is tainted by being associated with Blagojevich, no matter what — and he never showed Burris breaking any law. In fact, if that’s the worst the phone bugging produced, I think Burris will skate. As far as I’m concerned, I’ll put up with Burris just like I have to put up with the RNC spending hundreds of thousands of $ to keep Al Franken legally entangled with Norm ‘Sore Loser’ Coleman. A fund linking small donations to the DNC for every day the Coleman sidehow drags on has now raised over a hundred K for the Dems.

I love the sudden horror of commenters here who are shocked to see quid pro quo maneuvering in money-driven Washington. Where have you folks been? There are 30,000 lobbyists in that town and they didn’t arrive yesterday.

He should have fessed up about the conversation when he was being questioned under oath. I would have to hear the entire conversation to make a judgment call, but he certainly should have revealed he had the conversation. This has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican. There are crooks in both parties, Augustine, or whatever your name really is. You are really amazing.

All this doesn’t matter. He’s a black democrat and therefore untouchable. He already engraved his exalted title in his mauseleum. He can defy all he wants and poilitical correctness will make it all go away.

I consider myself a pretty loyal democrat, but I do not understand why anyone is supporting Burris anymore. Sure, give him the benefit of the doubt initially. But as he has been changing his story, and these tapes have been coming out he is just dead weight in the senate. Even if these tapes are not 100% incriminating in a legal sense, it sure makes him look sleazy. Even though he says he never had any intention of raising money for the governor, his own words on tape sure give a different impression. The democrats in the senate should get rid of him as quick as they can. Then Pat Quinn should appoint a moderate democrat with a perfectly clean record to the position. He makes democrats and politicians look bad.

After listening to the telephone conversation, I had to think about the statements made. However, after hearing Burris’ comments and his explanation of the events change over three different times and his explanations contradicting the the taped call and his actions after, I would have to say that it is obvious his intent was to do a favor for a favor and that favor was; I raise money, I want the senate seat. He didn’t leave much to the imagination.

This situation, and the mess that we had in New York involving Caroline Kennedy, would never have happened if senators were replaced by special election rather than appointment. It’s a lose-lose for the governor involved (no matter who he appoints, he creates a ton of enemies plus one prominent ingrate) and seemingly the people too. General question: what would it take to change that rule? Is it a Constitutional issue?

As for Post #1, the ever-vigilant John D Augustine XXV: Luckily for everyone, there is not such thing as the “Democrat party.” So, no problem there!

I also saw the Chris Matthews interview and agree ithe Burris tape could be interpreted in a number of ways, but the bottom line is that Roland Burris knew what was wrong and did his very best to get the seat without appearing to be paying for it. He was clearly playing the game. At the least, he is ethically challenged. And the Democrats do not need him around even for his vote.

We can be sure of one thing at least. Burris must be one of the more naive members of the Senate. Why he would allow himself to become a tidbit for Matthew’s bullying defies explanation.
If he is not the brightest light on the hill, neither is there a smoking gun, so far. His ambition certainly clouded his thinking and he will probably have a short run. But if his path to his seat is eventually found to be fraudulent, it is regularly matched and surpassed by the craven claptrap coming from his obstructionist and dead end republican colleagues.
And Blago, who placed this time bomb in the room. What a spectacle of self important discomfort and incompetence.

The Hardball interview with Sen. Burris is best viewed as a supplement to Mr. Tim Wright’s interview earlier that morning with the Morning Joe crew. Mr. Wright provides the same defense later repeated by Sen. Burris but adds that Sen. Burris “had the moral turpitude to refuse to raise funds” for Gov. Blago. What a great Freudian slip! MSNBC is by far the best political news network in the US!

States get to choose how their Senators are elected. One of the Amendments to the US Constitution, however, mandates that Senators are elected just as Representatives are. However, it only applies to the end of an actual Senate-seat term.

Therefore, your state would need to change the rule to allow for a special election. Some states do.

SteveR – get a grip. He is not untouchable. A crook is a crook, if that is what he is. You understimate this society. I am black and don’t care that he is black. He should have been truthful about it all when he had the chance.

So are you saying that there are no blacks who can see things for what they are? I agree that there are white who have racist motives for why they attack, but even if that was the reason this investigation was started, in this case, he should have fessed up and has no excuse.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…